The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1887-05-20
An Avalanche Of Questions.

IN TINS campaign against aIcOhotic DefeT-
ages, and those who sell them, that have
embarrassed my pen when | have attempt
to credit Prohibitionists with honest and
common sense.
/. If | drink wine with the same moder-
alton that the editor of Tie Tote6 exercises
in drinking tea, and with as great appre-
{ citation. has the editor of Tie Ioice Il right.
in this country of equal rights. to declare
shat | shall not drink wine?
=. If Christ made and drank good wine
(and unfermented wine cannot be good
wine), shall | be forbidden to follow his
example?
3. If a neighbor Of mine abuse liberty,
shall ] be made 4 slave?
4. Because my neighbor prostitutes the
right of suffrage, shall be denied the
right to vote?
). Because quacks practice medicine,
shall the practice of medicine be prohibit
ted9
6. Because men like sam Jones make n
burlesque Of religion, and i%ntroduce clowns
into pulpits, shall men of God be prohibit
ted from preaching?
:. If prohibition prohibits, why has
Maine. with GAS. 600 people, 81 men re-
failing liquor, while Arkansas, where the
liquor business is licensed, with a popuja-
ton of S02, 900, has but 659?
s. If prohibition prohibits, why has Kan
sas. with $685. 900 people, 2.3l9 men retail
ing LIQUORS, while South Carolina, where
the liquor business is licensed, with 4 pop
ulation of 995, 900, has but 93S??
O.. Ifprolibition prohibits, why has iowa,
with LOCO, 900 people, :, 769 men retailing
LIQUORS. while Alabama, where the liquor
business is licensed, with 4 population OF
1. 200, 900, has but ,oS9a
10. If prohibition prohibits, why have
the people OF Michigan refused TO try the
Amendment again? and why did Massa-
chusetts. after three trials, return to a IL
cense system?
II. If prohibition prohibits, why has
prohibition, even when Neal Dow stands
at the helm. and when % amendments
have been added to the law, always in
creased the number OF liquor dealers -.
u. If prohibition does not prohibit, is it
not foolish. to say the least, to abridge the
liberties of the people, destroy millions OF
revenue. and eoniiscate hundreds of mil
ions of private property:
10. If Prohibitionists, claiming that
whiskey is responsible for poverty, etc.,
can rightfully conffscate private property,
in the shape of distilleries, etc, cannot
Henry Georges followers, with equal
Justice. confiscate private property in land,
and the Communists personal property,
as all are ~endeayoring to attain the same
end?
IA. If whiskey is responsible for crime,
why is crime so prevalent Ill countries
where alcoholic beverages are unknown?
II. If the use of alcoholic beverages Is
detrimental, mentally and physically, and
the non-use so advantageous, how Is ittliat
the great men of history, Washington
Gladstone, Bismark, DeLesseps, and others
ad infnitum. who all drank wine, brandy.
ETC., had been SO long-lived, and attained
so great prominence?
16. WHY is it that the leading Prohibi-
ZIONIST of Atlanta, Ca, after attempting to
prevent othersfrom getting whiskey, orders
a barrel of Il dealer in this city for his own
use?
| take it for granted that the Editor OF
The Voice is a sensible man, and, as such,
| challenge him to publish these queries,
with calm and reasonable replies.
T. VI. GILMORE.
Louisville, Ky.
There is your letter in full, and here are
our replies, as ''calm and reasonable as
we know how to make them:
/. Prohibition is not a question OF phi
vate habits, but Of public policy. In con-
sidefing the tariff policy, the question is
not, How does it affect AS personal inter-
ests? nor, will it debar from our ports
certain kinds of apparel B likes to wear,
or food likes to eat? No: the question is
how does it affect the community as a
whole? IF well, then any personal dlSeom-
forts we endure by reason Of it, we must
bear as we can. So with Prohibition. It
is n question of public policy. Is it the
policy required for the community , II so
then the greatest good to the greatest
number requires its adoption, whether
yoa are deprived of your luxury Of Wine
drinking, or another Of his ~tea-dfinking.
If the safety of the community required an
embargo on the importation of all tea, do
you suppose the people would hesitate be-
cause some men insisted on it that tea did
not hurt them, but did them good, and
they liked to drink it? Why, in the ease
of Prohibition, should the people hesitate
because some men say they like to drink
wine?
.. What kind Of wine Christ drank is Il
matter of dispute among able scholars.
Some of the ablest, like Tayler Lewis and
President Mott. have maintained the I'M
fermented wine theory. But this is ccr-
tain: Christ never made wine drinking
} Except at the sacrament) a duty Of ms fol-
lowers. Prohibition does not, then, inter-
, fere with the performance Of any Christian
duty. You may claim the moral right to
drink wine or to build q frame house, be-
; cause Christ did both. But the law steps
in and says no frame house shall be bnilt
within the irc-limits Of great cities. Why?
Because it is dangerous to the community.
On the same basis tile law should step in
and restrict the liquor traffic in liquor to
certain uses adiudged necessary. And You
must give up your moral right, if you have
one, to drink wine, just rs you give up
your moral right to build q hous in the
heart of Louisville, because you are 4 mem
Der Of the com nunity, and the interests of
the community demand it. On no other
basis can 4 community exist.
g. 4, ), and 6. A cool man may carry y
revolver and never misuse it. Must he
give up that privilege because his hot
headed neighbor cannot carry it as safely ?
OF course he must-or 90 to iail. Smith